Why I run red lights

dgk said:

I do. Slowly and making sure that there is no danger. I do it for a
simple reason. The lights are staggered around Manhattan, meaning that
they change in a sequence, set by timing. But the timing is set for
cars going way over the speed limit. I would guess, having driven
these streets sometimes, around 36 to 40 mph.

Sounds like you're trying to rationalize. No danger in running lights in
Manhattan? I doubt that. If it's safe, then cars should be able to treat
red lights as if they were yield signs.

Quoted message said:

Because it takes so much energy to start, it is tremendously
draining to keep stopping and starting all the time.

You said you slow down at the lights, so you'd have to accelerate anyway.
Why does stopping drain your energy so much. The stop should give you time
to catch your breath.

Quoted message said:

It would take me easily twice as long to get home if I had to stop and
wait at every light.

Try it once and see what the actual difference is. I doubt it would be
"easily twice as long."

Quoted message said:

I run very few lights going to work. Early in the
morning it is possible to keep up with the lights much better.

Oh? But you said the lights are timed for 36-40mph. You can do that in the
morning?

Quoted message said:

I suggest two possible approaches to the problem. The first is to
simply legalize the existing situation and recognize that a bike is
not a car. A red light for a bike means YIELD. Seems reasonable to me.

Yeah, that's gonna happen in Manhattan.

Quoted message said:

The second is to change the timing of the lights to 20mph. That is a
reasonable speed for a car to move through Manhattan, and I can at
least make five or six lights before getting stuck at a red one. Plus,
it will be safer all around.

So if they set the timing to 20 mph, you wouldn't run any lights? I don't
believe you. You've got the same scofflaw mentality as many motorists. You
rationalize why it's OK for YOU to break the law, but not others.

Art Harris

"dgk" wrote: (clip)recognize that a bike is not a car (clip)change the
timing of the lights to 20mph. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Recognize that a bike is not a car? This goes against all the wisdom about
impressing the authorities and the public that a bike is a vehicle with all
the rights of othere vehicles.

If the lights are actually synched to a speed of 36 to 40 MPH, as you say,
and you rode at half that speed, then you would be in the middle of the
block at the first light change, and perfectly in synch at the next. That
is completely equivalent, from your riding point of view, as cutting the
synch speed of the signals inhalf. Since you say you are hitting a red
light every few blocks, it indicates to me that you need to adjust your
speed SLIGHTLY. If you are hitting the tail end of a red, you need to speed
up. If you are hitting the beginning of a red, you need to slow down.

Harris said:

dgk said:

I do. Slowly and making sure that there is no danger. I do it for a
simple reason. The lights are staggered around Manhattan, meaning that
they change in a sequence, set by timing. But the timing is set for
cars going way over the speed limit. I would guess, having driven
these streets sometimes, around 36 to 40 mph.

Sounds like you're trying to rationalize. No danger in running lights in
Manhattan? I doubt that. If it's safe, then cars should be able to treat
red lights as if they were yield signs.

Very little danger. Traveling up or down town the avenue that you are
biking on is one way as are the cross streets. Many drivers from the
cross streets are turning onto the avenues so what everyone (and I
mean everyone) on a bike does is drift to the side of the avenue away
from the cars entering on the cross streets. Since so many of them are
turning it is easy to simply continue up the avenue away from the
turning cars.

The cars (and buses, taxies, trucks) are not the problem. The cars are
all waiting to turn because of the people crossing the street with the
light. I am very careful to avoid them, as are the vast majority of
bikes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Because it takes so much energy to start, it is tremendously
draining to keep stopping and starting all the time.

You said you slow down at the lights, so you'd have to accelerate anyway.
Why does stopping drain your energy so much. The stop should give you time
to catch your breath.

I read a great article (there was a pointer in this newsgroup a few
days ago but I can't find it now) concerning the amount of energy
needed to accelerate from 0. But you don't need to know exactly why it
takes so much more energy to start from a dead stop compared to just
moving along. All you need to note is that even bikes waiting at
lights (there are plenty that are not safe to run) are almost never
still; mostly we circle around just so that we aren't at a complete
stop. Intrinsically we know that going from even a slow circle is much
easier than beginning from a dead stop. And we do try to time it so
that we hit the light when it is green by slowing down before reaching
red lights.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It would take me easily twice as long to get home if I had to stop and
wait at every light.

Try it once and see what the actual difference is. I doubt it would be
"easily twice as long."

Quoted message said:

I run very few lights going to work. Early in the
morning it is possible to keep up with the lights much better.

Oh? But you said the lights are timed for 36-40mph. You can do that in the
morning?

There is significantly less congestion in the morning. The difference
between 7:45 am and 4 pm is considerable. Most of the reason that I
can't do better in the afternoon is because too many motorized
vehicles are cutting me off plus there are many vehicles doubleparking
and blocking the bike lane.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suggest two possible approaches to the problem. The first is to
simply legalize the existing situation and recognize that a bike is
not a car. A red light for a bike means YIELD. Seems reasonable to me.

Yeah, that's gonna happen in Manhattan.

Quoted message said:

The second is to change the timing of the lights to 20mph. That is a
reasonable speed for a car to move through Manhattan, and I can at
least make five or six lights before getting stuck at a red one. Plus,
it will be safer all around.

So if they set the timing to 20 mph, you wouldn't run any lights? I don't
believe you. You've got the same scofflaw mentality as many motorists. You
rationalize why it's OK for YOU to break the law, but not others.

Art Harris

Clearly not the same mentality. I drive a car often and don't run
lights whereas I do on a bike.

dgk said:

[snip rationalization for breaking the law]
The second is to change the timing of the lights to 20mph. That is a
reasonable speed for a car to move through Manhattan, and I can at
least make five or six lights before getting stuck at a red one. Plus,
it will be safer all around.

I don't see how your conclusion that it will be safer all
around follows. I think interrupting the flow of traffic
promotes safety, especially for pedestrians. If cars
are steadily streaming, their drivers will become more
inattentive.

Of course, I ran a red light last night. Waited through
one light cycle, but apparently I was in the wrong place
to trigger a green light. No cars around, so off I went.
Slightly different environment from mid-town Manhattan,
however. (For which I am very very glad)

scott

Harris said:

dgk said:

I do. Slowly and making sure that there is no danger. I do it for a
simple reason. The lights are staggered around Manhattan, meaning
that they change in a sequence, set by timing. But the timing is set
for cars going way over the speed limit. I would guess, having driven
these streets sometimes, around 36 to 40 mph.

Sounds like you're trying to rationalize. No danger in running lights
in Manhattan? I doubt that. If it's safe, then cars should be able to
treat red lights as if they were yield signs.

Quoted message said:

Because it takes so much energy to start, it is tremendously
draining to keep stopping and starting all the time.

You said you slow down at the lights, so you'd have to accelerate
anyway. Why does stopping drain your energy so much. The stop should
give you time to catch your breath.

Quoted message said:

It would take me easily twice as long to get home if I had to stop
and wait at every light.

Try it once and see what the actual difference is. I doubt it would be
"easily twice as long."

Quoted message said:

I run very few lights going to work. Early in the
morning it is possible to keep up with the lights much better.

Oh? But you said the lights are timed for 36-40mph. You can do that
in the morning?

Quoted message said:

I suggest two possible approaches to the problem. The first is to
simply legalize the existing situation and recognize that a bike is
not a car. A red light for a bike means YIELD. Seems reasonable to
me.

Yeah, that's gonna happen in Manhattan.

Quoted message said:

The second is to change the timing of the lights to 20mph. That is a
reasonable speed for a car to move through Manhattan, and I can at
least make five or six lights before getting stuck at a red one.
Plus, it will be safer all around.

So if they set the timing to 20 mph, you wouldn't run any lights? I
don't believe you. You've got the same scofflaw mentality as many
motorists. You rationalize why it's OK for YOU to break the law, but
not others.

Bingo...right on money...nail on head...well said.

I'm not above running red lights and stop signs once in a while, but I know
I'm breaking the law and /could/ get cited for it. (Hopefully nothing
worse, as I look REALLY carefully both ways before proceeding on my
selfish-but-cautious way.)

You pays your money; you takes your chances...
--
"Sorry the world just does not work by your white penis ass."
-- Pungent Cloud

Leo Lichtman said:

"dgk" wrote: (clip)recognize that a bike is not a car (clip)change the
timing of the lights to 20mph. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Recognize that a bike is not a car? This goes against all the wisdom about
impressing the authorities and the public that a bike is a vehicle with all
the rights of othere vehicles.

I think that is a bad approach. I am not a car. The combined weight of
myself and my bike is still less than that of many people. I will
never have the right to ride on a highway, nor do I expect it nor want
it.

Quoted message said:

If the lights are actually synched to a speed of 36 to 40 MPH, as you say,
and you rode at half that speed, then you would be in the middle of the
block at the first light change, and perfectly in synch at the next. That
is completely equivalent, from your riding point of view, as cutting the
synch speed of the signals inhalf. Since you say you are hitting a red
light every few blocks, it indicates to me that you need to adjust your
speed SLIGHTLY. If you are hitting the tail end of a red, you need to speed
up. If you are hitting the beginning of a red, you need to slow down.

I think the logic is off here. The lights turn green one after another
so that a vehicle going 35 mph hits each intersection as that light
changes to green. A vehicle starting when a light turns green but
going half that speed will fall out of the sequence. Going half the
speed simply means that you will make two or three lights and then
miss one and have to wait. It does not mean that the light on the next
corner will cycle green red green by the time you reach it.

By the way, blocks in Manhattan, heading north/south, are very short,
perhaps a third of the size of east/west blocks.

Scott said:

Of course, I ran a red light last night. Waited through
one light cycle, but apparently I was in the wrong place
to trigger a green light. No cars around, so off I went.

That's not running a red light. The signal is malfunctioning by
failing to detect that you're there. Disregarding malfunctioning
traffic signals is perfectly legal.
--
"J'avais trouv'e ma religion :
rien ne me parut plus important qu'un livre.
La biblioth`eque, j'y voyais un temple."
--Jean-Paul Sartre

dgk <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The second is to change the timing of the lights to 20mph. That is a

reasonable speed for a car to move through Manhattan, and I can at
least make five or six lights before getting stuck at a red one. Plus,
it will be safer all around.

Or you could just ride on a Saturday night when the traffic is bumper
to bumper and everyone is going approximately 1 mile an hour. Only the
cyclists get anywhere fast. When I went into Manhattan last, the only
thing moving were the bicycles. I have never been in the city when
traffic was moving at 40 mph. Last time I sat in the car and watched
the bicycles fly by my window.

http://www.geocities.com/lindaannbuset/mypage.html

Little Meow said:

Harris said:

dgk said:

I run very few lights going to work. Early in the
morning it is possible to keep up with the lights much better.

Oh? But you said the lights are timed for 36-40mph. You can do that in
the morning?

The lights can be programmed with intervals to match peak and off hours,
workdays and weekends.

I was wondering if they do that so they are longer in the mornings.
They certainly seem easier to keep up with.

On 23 Nov 2004 11:26:31 -0800, [email hidden] (Maggie)

Quoted message said:

dgk <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The second is to change the timing of the lights to 20mph. That is a

reasonable speed for a car to move through Manhattan, and I can at
least make five or six lights before getting stuck at a red one. Plus,
it will be safer all around.

Or you could just ride on a Saturday night when the traffic is bumper
to bumper and everyone is going approximately 1 mile an hour. Only the
cyclists get anywhere fast. When I went into Manhattan last, the only
thing moving were the bicycles. I have never been in the city when
traffic was moving at 40 mph. Last time I sat in the car and watched
the bicycles fly by my window.

http://www.geocities.com/lindaannbuset/mypage.html

7:45 am. The traffic really moves then.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:23:07 -0600, Scott <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

dgk said:

[snip rationalization for breaking the law]
The second is to change the timing of the lights to 20mph. That is a
reasonable speed for a car to move through Manhattan, and I can at
least make five or six lights before getting stuck at a red one. Plus,
it will be safer all around.

I don't see how your conclusion that it will be safer all
around follows. I think interrupting the flow of traffic
promotes safety, especially for pedestrians. If cars
are steadily streaming, their drivers will become more
inattentive.

It is a given that the lights are staggered; the only question is the
speed. What I find odd, as a driver, is that the speed is above the
posted limit.

Two things in NYC made traffic bearable. One was staggered lights, the
other was changing virtually all streets to oneway.

I suppose the argument could be made that not doing those would have
reduced the number of cars in Manhattan.

Quoted message said:

Of course, I ran a red light last night. Waited through
one light cycle, but apparently I was in the wrong place
to trigger a green light. No cars around, so off I went.
Slightly different environment from mid-town Manhattan,
however. (For which I am very very glad)

scott

dgk said:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:23:07 -0600, Scott <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

dgk said:

[snip rationalization for breaking the law]
The second is to change the timing of the lights to 20mph. That is a
reasonable speed for a car to move through Manhattan, and I can at
least make five or six lights before getting stuck at a red one. Plus,
it will be safer all around.

I don't see how your conclusion that it will be safer all
around follows. I think interrupting the flow of traffic
promotes safety, especially for pedestrians. If cars
are steadily streaming, their drivers will become more
inattentive.

It is a given that the lights are staggered; the only question is the
speed. What I find odd, as a driver, is that the speed is above the
posted limit.

I imagine that's to prevent you from making a lot of
headway -- three lights and done, just like the scene
in Koyaanisqatsi. 🙂

The lights here are staggered also, but logically so.
The speed limit is 25. If you go 30, you end up braking
at all subsequent lights. If you go 25 you hit all the
lights just right.

scott

dgk said:

I read a great article (there was a pointer in this newsgroup a few
days ago but I can't find it now) concerning the amount of energy
needed to accelerate from 0. But you don't need to know exactly why it
takes so much more energy to start from a dead stop compared to just
moving along. All you need to note is that even bikes waiting at
lights (there are plenty that are not safe to run) are almost never
still; mostly we circle around just so that we aren't at a complete
stop. Intrinsically we know that going from even a slow circle is much
easier than beginning from a dead stop. And we do try to time it so
that we hit the light when it is green by slowing down before reaching
red lights.

This is true. I have to explain to people why I insist major streets be bike
friendly, when I could ride a nearby residential street instead. Well, for the
same reason you don't want to take these streets in your car -- too much
starting and stopping. When your horsepower is coming from your own legs, this
is very tiring. Also, because a bike can't accelerate like a car, the
difference in time is greater.

Matt O.

Leo Lichtman said:

"dgk" wrote: (clip)recognize that a bike is not a car (clip)change
the timing of the lights to 20mph. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Recognize that a bike is not a car? This goes against all the wisdom
about impressing the authorities and the public that a bike is a
vehicle with all the rights of othere vehicles.

If the lights are actually synched to a speed of 36 to 40 MPH, as you
say, and you rode at half that speed, then you would be in the middle
of the block at the first light change, and perfectly in synch at the
next. That is completely equivalent, from your riding point of view,
as cutting the synch speed of the signals inhalf. Since you say you
are hitting a red light every few blocks, it indicates to me that you
need to adjust your speed SLIGHTLY. If you are hitting the tail end
of a red, you need to speed up. If you are hitting the beginning of
a red, you need to slow down.

This is true, and it would probably work in Manhattan where lights are sync'ed
along major streets for miles. In other places, it's rare to find more than a
few lights in a row that are sync'ed.

When I was a kid, I remember either all red or all green lights as far as the
eye could see in Manhattan. I guess that was before modern traffic engineering.

Matt O.

Scott said:

Of course, I ran a red light last night. Waited through
one light cycle, but apparently I was in the wrong place
to trigger a green light. No cars around, so off I went.
Slightly different environment from mid-town Manhattan,
however. (For which I am very very glad)

scott

Most of our lights are demand lights. Some have pedestrian buttons,
inconveniently located for bicyclists, some have absolutely no way for
anyone but a car to trigger the light to change. It has reduced my
respect for red lights.

Pam

Leo Lichtman said:

If the lights are actually synched to a speed of 36 to 40 MPH, as you say,
and you rode at half that speed, then you would be in the middle of the
block at the first light change, and perfectly in synch at the next.

The problem is that lights that are synchronized at 40 mph are also
synched at 80 mph and the buffleheads in cars know that. Don't get in
their way.

"Zippy the Pinhead" The problem is that lights that are synchronized at 40
mph are also synched at 80 mph(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dear Zippy: Very amusing, but fortunately not true. If you go twice as
fast as the synch speed, you will arrive at the signal during a red light.
If you go at half the synch speed, you miss a green light, and arrive just
in time for the next one. This is what dgk doesn't get.

Zippy the Pinhead said:

Leo Lichtman said:

If the lights are actually synched to a speed of 36 to 40 MPH, as you say,
and you rode at half that speed, then you would be in the middle of the
block at the first light change, and perfectly in synch at the next.

The problem is that lights that are synchronized at 40 mph are also
synched at 80 mph and the buffleheads in cars know that. Don't get in
their way.

I don't think this works. If the next light is 1 mile away and is timed
for 40 mph, it will change in 90 seconds. If I'm going 80, I'll get there
in 45 seconds and have to wait for the light to change. On the other hand,
if I go 20, I'll get there in 180 seconds and just catch the 2nd green.

Leo Lichtman said:

"Zippy the Pinhead" The problem is that lights that are synchronized at 40
mph are also synched at 80 mph(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dear Zippy: Very amusing, but fortunately not true. If you go twice as
fast as the synch speed, you will arrive at the signal during a red light.
If you go at half the synch speed, you miss a green light, and arrive just
in time for the next one. This is what dgk doesn't get.

Senator, I swear I did not see this reply before submitting mine.